Re: What's a good isolating language to look at
|From:||John Quijada <jq_ithkuil@...>|
|Date:||Friday, December 9, 2005, 5:48|
Jim Henry wrote:
>I checked the gjâ-zym-byn version of the Babel text
>(not on my web site yet; I finished the second draft
>translation awhile ago, but got busy with other things
>before I had time to do an interlinear gloss). It has 208 words
>and 359 morphemes*, so an index of synthesis of 1.726.
>Like many engelangs** it's purely agglutinative; I don't have to
>count to see that the agglutinativity index is 1.0. ...
>[**] - Or all engelangs? Ithkuil may be partly
>fusional, but I haven't studied it in over a year
>so I may be misremembering. I can't
>think of any others that aren't agglutinating
>=========================================================================Ithkuil morpho-phonology is high fusional. I have a question, though. Do you
count zero-marked (i.e., unmarked) morphemes in a word when measuring the
synthetis/agglutinativity index of a language? For example, Ithkuil verbs
mandatorily inflect for 17 morphological categories, however, any given
actual verb form is likely to have up to a dozen or more of these 17
categories manifested as morphologically unmarked "default" values,
analogous to the German nominative case being zero-marked. Do such
zero-marked default morpheme-values get included when counting morphemes for
purposes of determining the synthesis/agglutinativity index?